College Republicans under fire

Impromptu debate:The woman standing near the left of the frame called Obsession racist; the woman standing to the right believed the film made a sound argument. Photo by laughingatliberals/youtube

During the past few weeks, Portland State’s College Republicans student group has found itself at the center of a proverbial storm, freshly igniting time-tested debates about free speech at the university.

In late May, the group sponsored two separate events that caused a stir: a talk by activist Nonie Darwish, who has been widely described as a vocal critic of Islam, and a screening of the documentary Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West.

Several students at the events charged the film and speaker with promoting racist rhetoric. A video of the confrontation after the film screening has received significant online media attention, stacking up nearly 20,000 views on YouTube as of Thursday.

“Both events made a huge distinction between the majority of Muslims and the radical strain,” said Julia Rabadi, president of the College Republicans. “[Darwish] said this isn’t about [Muslim] people, this is about an ideology.”

Members of the Muslim Student Association, among others, spoke out against the events.

“Islam is about mercy, peace, love, compassion. These words are the very opposite of what Nonie Darwish preaches and teaches others,” said member Sadaf Assadi.

Tensions ran high in both groups. Some Muslim students were worried that the events could incite violence and were concerned for their own safety on campus. A few weeks before the event, one Muslim student was assaulted in Smith Memorial Student Union and her hijab was pulled off, according to several students.

“We met with many of the people who were upset to let them know that we cannot stop an event because they find the content hurtful,” said Aimee Shattuck, director of Student Activities and Leadership Programs. Shattuck explained that Supreme Court cases have set a precedent that the First Amendment applies to student organizations.

At the same time, the College Republicans said they felt unsafe at their own event. Group members described a climate on campus that was hostile to their viewpoints.

“This campus is not tolerant of free speech if you disagree with the majority,” Rabadi said.

Free speech claimed by both sides

Some individuals were asked by Campus Public Safety Office officers to leave the events, raising questions about the parameters of free speech and the principles behind public spaces.

“The First Amendment is a very complex issue,” said Phil Zerzan, CPSO chief. “It’s a balancing act.”

“We encourage people to have civil discourse, to talk about controversial issues,” Zerzan said. He explained that CPSO was within its rights to make a call on whether safety was being disrupted.

“This is a university, so we have control over the time, place and manner in which that happens.”

While a number of students in the MSA agreed that the events were protected by the First Amendment, they spoke out against the tone of the messages presented.

“The message that Ms. Darwish conveyed to students was that Islam is violent and if people do not leave Islam, then they don’t belong in this country,” said Aaron Morrison, vice president of the MSA.

Rabadi disagreed, saying that Darwish’s talk targeted extremists.

“The only way you would be offended by either the Nonie Darwish or the Obsession event is if you are a radical yourself,” Rabadi said. “If they are against the radicals, if they are against the hate, if they are against the horrible abuse of human rights, then we’re on the same side.”

Some students called the College Republicans out for not wanting to engage in dialogue because the group did not schedule a question-and-answer session after the film screening. Rabadi explained that was standard practice for most of the group’s film screenings.

While group leadership left after the film, others stayed behind for informal discussion.

“There’s no proof that we don’t want to talk. Before each event, we always send an email to the opposing group,” said Rabadi, who provided the Vanguard with emails to various student groups. “We emailed the MSA asking if they wanted to do a debate. They chose not to respond.”

Morrison said he was not aware of attempts to contact the group, but would welcome dialogue.

“I believe it would have been good to have a discussion with the College Republicans after the film. [They] may have been able to clear up issues with the film that many students had,” Morrison said.

Emotions highly charged

According to Rabadi, the College Republicans have been harassed on campus for years. Small but active, the vocal group receives a lot of backlash, group members said.

“Ideologically, we are the minority,” said Renee Lang, a member of the group.

Rabadi said she wakes up an hour early every morning to put up meeting and event posters. Hours later, most of the fliers are ripped and defaced, she added.

In the weeks leading up to the two events, this escalated to another level. Throughout May, an anonymous protestor ripped down College Republican posters and replaced them with fliers that read: “Stop being racist, sexist, douchebags.”

Many in the group lamented those labels as misconceptions they face on a regular basis.

“We walked into our meeting to these posters. It’s intimidation,” said group member Gretchen Holman.

Working with officials on campus, the group caught a student on ripping down posters on camera. Conduct and Community Standards is currently investigating the matter; defacing posters is a punishable offense at PSU, Rabadi said.

“At this point, all of our issues are being addressed in some manner. We just don’t know in exactly which way,” she said.

Some Muslim students felt the administration had not done enough to address their concerns.

“Free speech is one thing, but hate speech is a completely different matter,” Assadi said. “There are extremists in every faith, but they are not representatives of the religion. Extremists are given this title for a reason.”

Assadi questioned the premise behind the events.

“What in the world is the relationship between a group called College Republicans and events about Islam?” Assadi wondered.

“Our way of life encompasses individual freedoms and liberties,” Rabadi said. “A radical sect wants to implement an unjust system. We have to talk about it,” she said, explaining why the group held the two events.

“As a Christian, I understand that any discussion of how a religion can be used by evil people is a sensitive subject,” said Jeremiah Scott, a College Republicans group member.

Both events were held in the Multicultural Center, leading some on campus to question whether the event adhered to the mission of the space.

“We are not a private space that can deny use of space,” said Cynthia Gomez, director of Cultural Centers. “We have a reservation policy open to all.”

In response to the events, Vice President for Enrollment Management and Student Affairs Jackie Balzer sent a letter to student groups outlining the university’s commitment to protecting free speech. She encouraged opposing groups to handle conflict with civility.

“There is always something to learn for next time,” Shattuck said. “But I don’t think that conflict can be avoided entirely, especially when people want to discuss such emotionally charged topics.”

VIDEO OF EVENTS FROM YOUTUBE

READ A COPY OF THE EMAIL LETTER FROM PRESIDENT WIM WIEWEL TO THE STUDENT BODY BELOW

In recent days, events organized by a student group have triggered vigorous reactions from other students, and I view this campus tension as an opportunity to clarify our rights and responsibilities as members of the Portland State community.

One of PSUs student-sponsored campus organizations held separate events in late May featuring a speaker and a film on jihadist threats. These events drew protests that the content was inflammatory and discriminatory against Muslims. The debate has intensified in recent days over the limits of free speech and how the university should respond to speech that is offensive to some members of our campus community.

Portland State University respects and supports your right to express your political and social views. Free speech — even when it is offensive — is protected by the First Amendment. In fact, valuing a robust debate of ideas is the underpinning of a liberal arts education at a public university. The best response to speech that is offensive is not to stifle the speaker but to answer with counter speech and dialogue. At the same time, we also are responsible for keeping our campus community safe from fear and intimidation, and we ask that you express views in a way that respects others. Free speech imparts both rights and responsibilities on us all.

All student organizations are required to follow the policies and procedures of the Student Activities and Leadership Program in order to receive student funding. In addition, PSUs Student Code of Conduct prohibits harassment, vandalism, inciting violence and similar misconduct. University staff members work hard to ensure that these rules are followed by those organizing and participating in all campus events. Even if you disagree with the content of these events, organizers have a right to sponsor them — and others have a right to protest these events  as long as all involved adhere to PSUs policies.

Portland State is a diverse community representing cultures, religions and political views from across the globe. What brings us together is our commitment to providing educational opportunities for all students. To do that, we must be mindful of both our rights and our civility.

We also have a duty to maintain a safe environment and culture of respect, and I encourage students to contact the Dean of Student Life and encourage faculty and staff to contact the Office of Global Diversity and Inclusion if you feel unsafe or unwelcome at PSU.

58 COMMENTS

I attended the event of the documentary of Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against
the West that the College Republicans showed in the Multicultural Center. I am not a student, but the College Republicans extended a invitation to attend so I went to see what the film had to say.

As a Veteran, I was interested to see what the film makers had to say and from what I have observed over the years.. Not just in the Middle East.. but in Asia, and Europe and even in the United States before I retired.

But Before the event, the President of the College Republicans had to contend with a Muslim Student who kept yelling over her opening statements for people NOT to watch the film. Disrupting her statement welcoming people to the event and even stating like the film said, that the views in the movie were not a statement on all Muslims.. But she was not allowed to even get that statement out because of the intolerance of the student that felt the need to keep people from hearing her.

Immediately after the film.. Multiple Muslim students who were in the room during the film got up and stated “This is HATE Speech”.. and then they demanded a debate.. Suddenly a group of 30 to 40 students entered the room and was obviously ready to confront anyone in the room College Republicans or guests.. That is why folks left the room..

This was not about Hate Speech at all.. this was about a group that was planned the confrontation from the start.. What I was dismayed with was.. it was in full view of a Student Advisor and a Campus Security guard.. who did nothing about the disruptions and I would venture to say I witnessed that advisor laughing as I left the room. That too was wrong… and it should never been allowed to happen.

There is a culture at PSU that is wrong. President Wiewels statement on the University working hard staff members work hard to enforce he rules and policies is not true in this case nor another I have witnessed.

A few months back I also attended a public event that had a Middle East Policy expert speak.. I witnessed students and faculty protest that event.. They disrupted the meeting and even when the speaker invited debate.. they refused and continued to heckle the speaker before they were asked to leave.

Free Speech is something we all hold dear.. but in the case of some groups at this college.. they believe that disrupting and bullying those they oppose is free speech.. I do not agree..

“the Qur’an is a text that is “violent, incendiary, and disrespectful” and says that barbarities such as brutalization of women, the persecution of homosexuals, honor killings, the beheading of apostates and the stoning of adulterers come directly out of the Qur’an.”

… while she is a Christian herself. What a hypocrite! These events were held by a politically-motivated organisation and are therefore political by default. If they were not held out of hatred (it is NO secret that the Republican faction is vehemently anti-Islam *and* extremely Christian), then I question their basic decision-making skills as university students.

Resistance is free speech, too, and I applaud those who do not support ideology based on fanatacism and hypocrisy. Defaced posters? Come back when people (in the United States) are murdered solely for being Christian.

They rioted when the Mohammed cartoon was published and threatened death to those responsible. There was no option for discussion; just rioting and death threats.

They killed Theo Van Gogh – slit his throat – when he openly criticized Islam. End of discussion.

They forced the Cartoon Channel from showing any and all jokes about Islam. This was taboo. End of free speech.

Violence is their answer to discussion, threats are their game, intimidation and anger is their idea of discussion.

…………..

Islam means submission, it does not mean peace. And this includes submission to Islam in all ways. Good Muslims never question Islam, they just submit to it, no matter how awful Mohammed’s actions were, Muslims are not allowed to question them.

Words, curiosity and honest discussion about their faith has been thoroughly destroyed in the Muslim mindset.
Like Pavlov’s dogs, discussion has been wiped clean from their slate of options.
……………..

In every single Muslim nation honest and forthright discussion is not allowed. In “moderate” Turkey there are more journalists in jail than anywhere else in the world. In other Muslim countries the journalists already know that to write or speak openly about Islam is tantamount to torture, imprisonment and possible death.
……………….

Let’s quit pretending. Let’s quit acting like fools about Islam and its true intent and purpose. All we are doing is projecting OUR notions about Islam, and our notions say more about our notions, our misguided notions than they say about what Islam really is.
………..
Google Lars Vilk and cartoon riot to see what Muslim students do in Europe when confronted with the truth about their religion.

I’m sorry, but do you have a single Muslim friend or engage with any Muslim community members? You cite some legitimate issues, such as the imprisonment of journalists in Turkey, but your overall conclusion that Muslims have no internal dialogue and emphasis on peace is patently false and inaccurate. I have lived and traveled widely in 7 different Muslim countries; I have close Muslim friends from many more countries than that; and I have an MA in history of Islam and the Middle East. As an academic, a woman, a 3rd-generation white American, a rational thinker, and a citizen of the world, I find your opinions expressed above to be counterproductive to peace, security, and true political solutions to the issues that radicalize people in the Muslim world. Please educate yourself and stop spreading your ignorance, for the sake of this country and this world.

Laura, I have no problems with Muslims. My beef is with their religion – Islam. Islam is a supremacist religion for whom all others (non-Muslims) are inferior. Islam’s prophet, Mohammed, was a sadist. He raped women, enslaved infidels (non-Muslims), tortured and led countless battles. He stole, pillaged and enriched himself at the expense of others.
Islam – as can be seen by anyone with eyes – is a religion that breeds violence. In Pakistan in 1971 over one million Hindus were killed by Muslims. In Sudan in the 1990s something approaching one million blacks were killed by Muslims. In the Iran/Iraq War Sunnis and Shi’ites battled each other for seven years resulting in over one million dead. (As an aside this Sunni/Shi’ite battles goes on every day throughout the Islamic world resulting in untold dead, tortured and imprisoned.) In 1915 1.5 million Armenians were killed by Muslims. And this just scratches the surface.
During and after Mohammed’s death Muslim Jihadists raided, enslaved, forcibly converted and killed people in their supremacist drive towards taking over the Middle East, North Africa, huge sections of Asia, Spain, southern Italy and even march as far north as the Gates of Vienna before being defeated.
So don’t tell me how Islam is a peaceful religion, for anyone with a brain in their head and some understanding of history – modern and ancient – knows this is a pack of lies.

Dude, really? Historically, people have killed people in competition over power and resources. None of this says anything specifically about Islam. Actually, after the conquest of Egypt by the Muslim armies, Egypt remained majority Christian for centuries – showing that there were few forced conversions, mostly just a transfer in empire from Byzantine government to Caliphate. Many historians have argued that Muslim armies were well-received because the Byzantine empire was falling apart and could not protect people from encroaching Persian armies. Now list out how many people in the Americas Christians killed when they conquested north and south america. Plus how many Christians phalangists killed in Lebanese civil war, how many were massacred by Christian Serbians, etc etc etc. Considering that there are more Christians in the world and the religion has been around for 6 centuries longer than Islam, surely more people in history have been killed by Christians than by Muslims. I don’t think that makes Christianity inherently a violent religion – i think that says that people exploit any ideology, including religion, to rally and justify political maneuvers.

Laura,
Christians who kill are sinners. Muslims who kill are promised virgins in paradise.
Mohammed (considered to be a perfect man by good Muslims) stole from helpless caravans. Christ fed the poor.
Mohammed enslaved and tortured. Christ cared for the weak.
Mohammed had intercourse with his last wife (Aisha) when she was nine years old and he was 54. Christ cared for women abused by men.
Mohammed died a fat, rich man surrounded by lustful women and soldiers. Is this how Christ died?
Mohammed and his men beheaded over 600 unarmed men and boys at the village of Qurayza and enslaved all the women from that village. Did Christ ever do anything like this? Did Buddha ever do anything like this? Did Moses, the Hindu Gods or any other prophet ever do anything like this?
……………
Laura, you can believe in fairy tales if that is your wont, or you can decide to read the truth about Islam and how it came to be the religion whose history makes that of any other peoples look like saints in comparison. If you are interested in reading the truth about Islam it is not hard to find it through writers like Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or, Andrew Bostom, Raymond Ibrahim,Ibn Warraq just to name a few.

As much as I’d like to believe there are moderate Muslims who wish to coexist with the societies around them, the evidence leans toward Islam being a religion which promotes violence against non-Muslims.
When Pope Benedict stated Islam was a religion of violence, Muslims throughout the world were so angered by such a statement that they went on violent rampages and killed.
When copies of the Qu’ran were desecrated Muslims retaliated by killing people.
When Islam is criticized, when pictures implying the Prophet are drawn, people die.
Christianity went through its time of hatred and isn’t completely out of it. Islam seems to be living in its own Middle Ages right now rather than the 21st century.

1. Nonie Darwish, the speaker hosted by Campus Republicans who was also a contributing voice to the film ‘Obsession’, is known for being a radical doomsday evangelical whose religion beliefs predict and anxiously await and massive world war clash of civilizations between Islam and Christianity, as the events that will herald the end of the world and judgement day. MAIN POINT: she is not a rational, reliable, or sane voice to listen to on these important political issues of violence in the Middle East and Islamic extremism.
2. The film Obsession has been widely denounced by political commentators and academics. The one academic who they interviewed for the film later made a public statement that his comments were taken out of context and he disagrees with the film’s message and content. Not only is it polemical and inaccurate and hateful, but it does not even get to the root of the issue – why does it not mention Al Qaeda once during the entire film, if it is seeking to educate us about actual Islamic extremism? It is does not educate on any issues of substance; it seeks to portray Islam ideologically as an inherently hateful and violent religion and worldview. This is false and unproductive, and will ultimately only promote more hate. That is why you do not see this film being shown by any university departments, Middle East institutes, etc etc. Not even the most conservative think tanks in DC would have their names connected to such a low-caliber and unsubstantiated product.3. TO the Vanguard writer: The term ‘jihadist’ is not longer used even by the US government and Department of Defense because it is inaccurate.
4. Between 2001-2008 Gallup polled hundreds of thousands across the Muslim world and they found that a very tiny percent – fraction of a percent – were participating, or willing to participate in violent acts. Moreover, this tiny group followed a model consistent with armed revolutionaries across cultures and religions, and very few to none cited religious motivations – most cited political motivations of being angry with Western policy and intervention in their countries and other Muslim countries. 93% of Muslims polled rejected violence. Most countries reported a high number of people unhappy with American foreign policy, which led them to have a negative opinion of the US. These findings are documented in a recent film and book called “Who Speaks for Muslims? What A Billion Muslims Really Think” – if you want to actually understand the Muslim world and the politics that affect US relations with Muslim public opinion, I would recommend seeing the film and otherwise educating yourself from academic and accredited journalistic sources.

In reality poll after poll after poll shows Muslims overwhelming want to eviscerate our freedoms, that Muslims want Sharia law to be enforced in the West, that Muslims support much of what Osama Bin Laden did and stood for.

Most of us in the West (other than brain-washed liberals in places like PSU) prefer American freedoms than Muslim enslavement. We like being able to express ourselves freely without having to worry about being killed for doing so. We like being able to walk down the streets freely, wearing whatever the hell we want, without fearing what the religious police might do to us if we say or wear or act differently. We like being able to question authority without fear for our lives which IS the case in almost the entire Muslim world.

Sara, if you are such a fan of Islam why don’t you tell us of a Muslim country where you recommend Americans look to as an example of something worth imitating. Why don’t you tell us about a Muslim country where non-Muslims are lining up to immigrate to. While you are at it why don’t you tell us how immigrants to Saudi Arabia, for example, have their passports stolen forcing these desperate immigrants into a life of slavery and fear.

Sara, you do not have to apologize for Islam your whole life. You can emulate those Muslims who have left the faith – yes, like Nonie Darwish. These are the Muslims who had the courage to question their leaders, to question Islam’s sadistic core tenets, and who became stronger, freer and more respected for doing so.

I am not a ‘fan of Islam’ – I am a fan of truth, human dignity, compassion, understanding, and justice. I am not going to waste my time addressing your superficial and ignorant narrative. Both of my grandfathers worked in the foreign service for the US government, one of them in Indonesia, a majority-Muslim country, then in Bangladesh and Mali. The other continues to work on disarmament issues in Somalia, consulting for the EU. I mostly derive my political opinions from my highly educated, US-government employed grandfathers and other knowledgeable academics and professionals who, as true patriots, wish to see a profound shift in US foreign policy and a genuine effort among Americans to respect and understand the Muslim world.

That’s great. Respect the “Muslim world”. Just terrific.
So you would have us respect a world where violence is a respected core tenet of their holy books as it most certainly is in Islam. Even a superficial understanding of the Quran, Hadiths and Sunna illustrates this very clearly.
Sara, riddle me this. Why is it Muslims have killed almost 5,000 Buddhists in southern Thailand? Why did Muslims commit genocide against the once flourishing Buddhist civilization in Afghanistan (and this occurred centuries ago)? Why is it Muslims invaded and killed tens of millions of Hindus? Why did Muslims kill more than one million black Animists in Africa over the last two decades?
Why did Mohammed and his men kill all the Jewish men and boys in the village of Qurayza and then rape their women and enslave them?
Why are Muslims fighting Russians in the Caucus region, Chinese in NW China?
Why are Muslims ethnically cleansing Christians from Nigeria, Ethiopia, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan and elsewhere?
Why are Muslims killing homosexuals throughout the Islamic world and treating women like chattel?
Why are Shi’ites killing Sunnis, Sunnis killing Shi’ites, Sunnis and Shi’ites killing Kurds? Why cannot Muslims even get along with fellow Muslims?
What is the common denominator here? Is it America’s “lack of respect for Islam”? If so then why did Muslims wipe out the Buddhists of Afghanistan and are now blowing up and burning the Buddhists ancient artifacts? All this happened long before America existed, colonialism (as you define it) existed,
imperialism existed?
Maybe it is time you learned some real history about Islam, some real history about what Islam’s prophet (Mohammed) did when he was alive.
I’m sure you come from a nice (and naïve) family and that your grandparents were nice men, but that does NOT mean they understood the forces they were addressing when they worked for the betterment of those they devoted their time to. There is often a wide gulf between doing things and understanding what is at play and it is clear your grandparents are guilty of just that.
While Muslims kill (in the name of Allah) Buddhists, Russians, Hindus, Jews, unarmed Christians, Black Animists, homosexuals, women, black child slaves, Zoroastrians, Copts and Chaldeans, Assyrians and Kurds and Armenians you make excuses for their bloodlust because your UNDERSTANDING OF ISLAM IS BASED ON A SET OF FALSE MEMES. It is long past time you quit fooling yourself and others about the true nature of Islam and took the time to learn Islam’s true tenets and how Mohammed set this viscous cycle of aggression and supremacism in motion.

Sara,
You should devote some time studying the Religion of Peace website.
One of the things this website does (besides being an excellent source of education and information on Islam) is chronicle the daily attacks committed by Muslims in the name of Allah. The site chronicles the location of the attack, the number of people killed and/or wounded, the people who committed the attack and what weapons they used, the site also chronicles what terrorist group the killer(s) belong to.
Do you find it curious/odd that the most devout Muslims – those that have memorized the Quran and have studied Mohammed’s life in depth – are often the most violent Muslims?
Why do you suppose this is?

Arafat, one word: Islamophobia. You are a troll wasting away your life on the internet. I feel truly sorry for you. It’s funny, the film claims to address a Muslim ‘obsession’ but it seems to more accurately portray an irrational Christian obsession. I think it would be good for you to see the film I mentioned previously, ‘Inside Islam: What One Billion Muslims Really Think.’ Gallup Polls. Surveys. People expressing their opinions in their own words. Sources. Legitimacy. Give it a shot. Also, while you’re at it, check out Jeremy Scahill’s new film ‘Dirty Wars.’ Peace, Sara

“Ever since the religion of Islam appeared
in the world, the espousers of it…have been as wolves and tigers to
all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their
merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth; that numberless
cities are raised from the foundation, and only their name remaining;
that many countries, which were once as the garden of God, are now a
desolate wilderness; and that so many once numerous and powerful nations
are vanished from the earth! Such was, and is at this day, the rage,
the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind.”

Sara, The following information tells us all we need to know about how Islam views non-Muslims as inferior, unequal and less deserving. This is what you are supporting. Are you proud of yourself?

………..

Universal Human Rights:

With regard to human rights, the American founding fathers
rightly believed that equality, free speech, and religious freedom, are
universal and inalienable. Such rights are granted by God, not by government.
Consequently they cannot be abridged or revoked by government. This view is
rejected by Islamists.

In defiance of the U.N.’s 1948 Universal Declaration of
Human Rights,[22] Islamists recognize only those rights which are narrowly
granted under Shariah law by the Quran and the Hadith (the traditional account
of the life and sayings of Mohammed, written many years after his death.). This
alternative view of human rights was clearly set forth in the 1990 Cairo
Declaration, endorsed by all 57 member Organization of Islamic Cooperation.[23]
In Shariah compliant cultures, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, inequalities
between men and women, or Muslims and non-Muslims, are the rule rather than the
exception. Women, Christians, Jews, polytheists and especially atheists are
regarded as socially, legally, and even mentally inferior to Muslim men.[24]

While Christianity and Judaism teach that all people should
be treated with kindness and respect because they are created in God’s image
(see Matthew 5:43-44, 1 John 4:20), the Quran forbids friendship with
unbelievers (Quran 5:51)[25] and considers it unlawful even to give them
charity (zakat).[26] Non-Muslims are forced to embrace Islam or be reduced to
dhimmis – second-class citizens. Under Shariah law, dhimmitude is a form of
subjugation, which limits the social, religious, legal, and economic rights of
non-believers, and imposes a special tax burden on them as a penalty for
rejecting Islam.

ARAFAT, I think you need a basic Civics lesson before you can engage in any substantive and meaningful political dialogue.

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (UDHR) and the BILL OF RIGHTS are different documents.

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the one of three documents drafted for the International Bill of Human Rights. The UDHR was the first to be adopted by the United Nations’ General Assembly in 1948.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains 30 Articles, which outline the general principles of human rights. There are nine primary International Human Rights Treaties. These treaties are legally binding
agreements that govern the conduct of nation states towards people. Many of the treaties contain sub-agreements called Optional Protocols and Articles. There are a total of 22 legally binding agreements contained under the umbrella of International Human Rights Treaties, all of which are written with the objective of establishing and protecting human beings and their rights.

The United States has only ratified 5 of the 22 agreements intended to protect human beings and their rights.

BILL OF RIGHTS:

The first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution are called the BILL OF RIGHTS. These are the rights that grant freedom of religion, freedom of speech, our right to peacefully assemble, protect our right to privacy,
among others. The First Amendment, which commences, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion,…” is the foundation of the ‘separation of church and state’ doctrine.

The United States Congress ratified the Constitutional Amendments in 1791, not God.

ARAFAT, you stated that you believe these “…rights are granted by God, not by government. Consequently they cannot be abridged or revoked by
government. This view is rejected by Islamists.”

I think you are confused when you state, “This view is rejected by Islamists.” The Quran provides the primary basis of Shariah Law, and the Five Pillars of Islam outline the basic identity of Muslims; their faith, beliefs and practices. All of which, are built on the foundation that Allah (God) is the Creator, Loving and generous Provider, Merciful and compassionate Guide, and Supreme Master. Muslims believe that Allah (God) embodies absolute goodness, and all that is good is granted by him. I think it is safe to say, human rights are a good thing.

In comparison, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Bill of Rights are documents drafted by men, then enacted and ratified by governing bodies. And they too, are good things.

Sydney,
Why have the 57 members of the OIC (all Islamic affiliated countries) all signed onto the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights?
Why did the Islamic and Islamic affiliated countries determine the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was not appropriate for them?
………..
Sydney,
Why is it there is not one single Muslim country where freedom of press is practiced? Gosh, Sydney, even a moderate Muslim country like Turkey has imprisoned more journalists than any other country in the world. Why is this?
…………..
Sydney,
Why is it that in every single Muslim country freedom of speech is limited and often severely so it Islam is so darn similar to our understanding of universal human rights?
……….
Sydney,
Why is it that women’s rights in every single Islamic nation are curtailed and often severely so, if Muslims are so keen on universal human rights?
………….
Sydney,
All religions are unique. Some more so than others. Buddhism is very different than any other religion as is Hinduism, Animism, etc…Of course Christianity is unique too, AS IS ISLAM.
A popular Western meme today is to generalize all religions as being similar and this is simply not true. No religion, other than Islam, had a prophet who stole, enslaved, raped, led over 60 battles often against unarmed civilians other than Islam.
Is wish people like you would understand Islam instead of thoughtlessly accepting the meme that it is as pure as the driven snow. It ain’t pure and it IS as unique (uniquely violent and aggressive) as snow is in the Arabian Peninsula.

Sydney,
Let me clarify a point you raised. The Universal Declaration is, indeed, a doctrine created by men, not by God. (Although it IS based on many Jewish and Christian values.) If I wrote otherwise than your correcting me was entirely appropriate.
But this brings up another important distinction between Christianity and Islam.
Christ said, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s.” Christ had no interest in the affairs of state.
In sharp contrast, Mohammed was a megalomaniac for whom no amount of power was ever enough. This is why, of course, there is limited (often no) separation between mosque and state in all Islamic countries, and where there is a distinction it is often short-lived. Turkey is an example of this. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey was ruled by the military and secular laws for 80+ years, but this was an aberration in a country that is almost 100% Muslim. Today, of course, this separation of mosque and state is being quickly destroyed by Recap Erdogan the Islamist leader of Turkey for the last many years. Before too long Turkey will look like all the other Islamic countries where individual freedoms are non-existent and universal human rights are pissed upon.

The film Obsession has been widely denounced by political commentators and academics. The one academic who they interviewed for the film later made a public statement that his comments were taken out of context and he disagrees with the film’s message and content. Not only is it polemical and inaccurate and hateful, but it does not even get to the root of the issue – why does it not mention Al Qaeda once during the entire film, if it is seeking to educate us about actual Islamic extremism? It is does not educate on any issues of substance; it seeks to portray Islam ideologically as an inherently hateful and violent religion and worldview. This is false and unproductive, and will ultimately only promote more hate. That is why you do not see this film being shown by any university departments, Middle East institutes, etc etc. Not even the most conservative think tanks in DC would have their names connected to such a low-caliber and unsubstantiated product.

For those who are claiming Islam teaches the killing of apostates, the correct Islamic ruling is that a person should not be killed because they have rejected Islam, but only if they conspire against the religion/state-notice this is similar to rulings against espionage and similar crimes in even secular governments. Please educate yourselves and stop spreading lies and hate against Muslims.﻿ As the Quran says, “To you be your religion, and to me my religion”(surah 109). Peace.

It’s humorous to see Muslims say that apostasy goes
unpunished in Islam. The verses that they say “prove” apostate killing is forbidden in islam are actually the earlier verses in the religion, equivalent to the Old Testament. However, the verses in the Hadiths and quran that are equivalent to the New Testament show the real rulings on the issue of apostate killings and are the reason why Muslim countries still execute people for converting.

Abd-Allah ibn Masood said : The Messenger of Allah said : “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god except Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah, except in one of three cases : a soul (in case of murder) ; a married person who commits adultery ; and one who leaves his religion and separates from the main body of Muslims.” Sahih Al Bukhary number 6484 and Sahih Muslim number 1676

Indeed, those who reject the message after their belief and then increase in disbelief – never will their [claimed] repentance be accepted, and they are the ones astray. Sura 3:90

Indeed, those who have believed then disbelieved, then believed, then disbelieved, and then increased in disbelief – never will Allah forgive them, nor will He guide them to a way. Sura 4:137

And because the quran combines hypocrites (apostates) with unbelievers, all the verses commanding muslims to kill the unbelievers and not take them as friends also extend to the
apostates.

Think about it. People aren’t hosting videos or bringing speakers to talk about Hinduism, Buddism, Judiasm, Christianity, or any other religion but Islam. If islam was as genuine as muslims claim, conversations wouldn’t need to be had and dead bodies wouldn’t
be piling up every day.

Jake,
In regards to all the verses and hadith you quoted, you have a) taken them out of context, b) disregarded the fact that in Islam, nothing is determined with the evidence of one or two verses or hadith. When interpreting a verse or hadith, you must take few factors into consideration. Some of these factors are,1. the verse/hadith in comparison with all other verses and hadith in the same category and those that are revealed the same period. 2. The contemporary consensus of scholars on the matter and/or similar matters(called Ijma). Taking all factors into consideration, hypocrisy, apostasy and nonbelievers are not even in the same category, and nothing that you have cited convey the true Islamic ruling on any of them. You have the right to criticize Islam all you want, but it is a fraud to accuse of Islam/or any other religion that what it does not teach. My challenge to you and those with similar views is-If you truly want to challenge Islam…STUDY it first(not from Fox news, former-Muslims United, and similar biased sources) but from authentic and scholarly Islamic source. May peace be with you, or as we say it in Arabic, Asalamu Alaykum.

Haha you have got to be kidding me. Look at EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT ever made with a muslim and the first thing out of their mouth is OUT OF CONTEXT!!! Seriously, if it’s in your Quran and if the apostates all over the world are being killed, then it is not out of context. You’re either practicing Taqiyya or are blinded by your dedication to a religion that considers you worthless. I feel sorry for you and for every woman who believes in an ideology that is responsible for the worst human rights record of all time. Maybe one day you’ll get sick of it and want to be treated as an equal.

Yes, context is extremely important in understanding Islam, because the first thing to consider when interpreting a verse or hadith is the circumstance under which it was revealed to the prophet, or narrated from the prophet. The meaning of a verse depends mainly on when, where and why it was revealed. No offense, but please, stop typing and start thinking.

Start thinking? If you would take your own advice, you wouldn’t be so blind to the monstrosities that your religion approves and encourages. The backwards thinking that unfortunately plagues a great deal of Muslims is why Islamic countries are so behind the rest of the civilized world. The Islamic counties continue to deteriorate while the non-Islamic countries continue to flourish. This is why so many Muslims prefer to go to non-muslim schools, non-muslim states, and belong to non-muslim societies.

I strongly agree with Sacida on this issue. In fact almost all Muslims want to change the West to conform with Islamic ways even though Sacida tells us not even Muslim countries are successful at practicing “true” Islamic ways.

Which begs the question: What wuld a true Islamic country look like (in Sacida’s mind’s eye)?

The three countries that spring to mind – that are considered true followers of Sharia law are Saudi Arabia, Iran and Somalia. Now doesn’t that make one feel all warm and fuzzy about the potential for true Islamic countries? Genocide, ethnic cleansing and misogyny seem to be the true Islamic way, eh Sacida?

The problem is that many of the Hadiths are not based on writings, but are based on recorded history of what Mohammed and his men actually did.

Now it is written in the Hadiths that Mohammed and his men beheaded over 600 men and boys in the village of Qurayza and then enslaved all the women, raping some of the more beautiful.

How would you interpret (or should I say “spin”) this piece of Islamic history to help us put it in the context of the time.

Oh, and by the way, the villagers of Qurayza – and this is also recorded in the Hadiths – were peaceful villagers not out to confront Mohammed in any way.

Sacinda, does it get tiring carrying water for Islam? Does it get tiring apologizing for Islamic barbarity? Do you get tired of excusing genocidal pigs like Omar al-Bashir, or mass murderers like Assad, Hussein and the like?

Hey John, I mean Arafat, you wrote, “It is written in the Hadiths that Mohammed and his men beheaded over 600 men and boys in the village of Qurayza and then enslaved all the women, raping some of the more beautiful”. Please cite the direct Islamic source of this story. Let’s help each other learn here. Thank you.

Another misconception is that Muhammad did not render the death sentence against
the Qurayza and was therefore not responsible for it. There
is a partial truth in this, in that Muhammad clearly attempted to offload responsibility on another party.
However, from the narrative, it is obvious that Muhammad clearly approved of the
subsequent massacre – a fact further verified both by his choice of “arbitrator”
and his subsequent reaction.

First, the prophet of Islam tricked the Qurayza
by getting them to agree to put their fate in the hands of “one of their own.” In fact, this
was a Jewish convert to Islam, a Muslim who had fought in the Battle of the
Trench. Unbeknownst to the Qurayza, Sa’d bin Muadh had also been one of the few
Muslims fatally injured in the battle (Ishaq/Hisham 689), which one can reasonably assume to
have influenced his judgment. According to the Hadith, he was quite eager to
continue slaying “unbelievers” even as he lay dying in his tent (Bukhari
59:448).

Secondly, when Sa’d did render his decree that the men of Qurayza should be
killed and their women and children pressed into slavery, Muhammad did not
express the slightest bit of disapproval. In fact, the prophet of Islam
confirmed this barbaric sentence to be Allah’s judgment as well (Bukhari
58:148).

Consider the contrast between the historical Muhammad and the man of “peace and
forgiveness” that today’s Muslims often assure us that he was. In light of the
fact that the Qurayza had not killed anyone, wouldn’t a true man of peace have
simply sought dialogue with them to try and determine their grievance, find
common ground and then resolve the matter with dignity to both parties?

Instead, the prophet of Islam had the men bound with rope. He dug trenches and
then began beheading the captives in batches. In a scene that must have
resembled footage of Hitler’s death squads, small groups of helpless Jews,
who had done no harm to anyone, were brought out and forced to kneel, staring
down at the bodies of others before their own heads were lopped off and their
bodies were pushed down into the ditch.

There is some evidence that Muhammad personally engaged in the slaughter. Not
only does the earliest narrative bluntly say that the apostle “sent for them” and “made an
end of them,” but there is also support for this in the Qur’an. Verse 33:26 says
of the Qurayza, “some you slew, some you took captive.” The Arabic
“you: is in the plural, but the Qur’an is supposed
to be Allah’s conversation with Muhammad, so it makes no sense that he
would not be included.

In any event, there is no denying that Muhammad found pleasure in the slaughter,
particularly after acquiring a pretty young Jewish girl (freshly “widowed” and
thus available to him for sexual servitude) (Ishaq/Hisham 693).

Also, killings of apostates in “Muslim” countries does not automatically prove that they are following authentic Islamic teachings. In fact, Muslim scholars agree that there is no country on the face of earth today that follows true Islamic teachings.

Well ani’t that swell, Sacida. Their are 57 Islamic countries affiliated with the OIC and not one of them that follows true Islamic teachings. Why don’t you tell us where these 57 countries fall short and use Quranic sources to prove your point.

Sara is practicing the Islamic game of taqiyya. Taqiyya is the Islamic art of deceiving non-Muslims; of tricking them into believing things about Islam that are patently false.

Here is the truth about how apostates are to be treated in Islam:

…………..

Qur’an (4:89)
– “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you
would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they
emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay
them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or
helper.”

Qur’an (9:11-12)
– “But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are
they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have
knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made
with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief – Lo! they
have no binding oaths – in order that they may desist.”
Other verses that seem to support the many Hadith demanding death for apostates
are Qur’an verses
2:217,

Here is information from the Hadiths on how apostates are to be treated:

The reason why executing apostates has always been well-ensconced in Islamic law
is that there is an indisputable record of Muhammad and his companions doing
exactly that according to the reliable Hadith. According to verse
4:80
of the Quran: “Whoso obeyeth the Messenger obeyeth Allah.”

Bukhari (52:260) – “…The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards
his religion, kill him.’ ” Note that there is no distinction
as to how that Muslim came to be a Muslim.

Bukhari (83:37) – “Allah’s Apostle never killed anyone except in one of
the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was
killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse
and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and
became an apostate.”

Bukhari (89:271) – A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to
be killed according to “the verdict of Allah and his apostle.”

Bukhari (84:58) – “There was a fettered man beside Abu
Muisa. Mu’adh asked, ‘Who is this (man)?’ Abu Muisa said, ‘He was a Jew
and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.’ Then Abu Muisa
requested Mu’adh to sit down but Mu’adh said, ‘I will not sit down till he has
been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and
repeated it thrice.’ Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he
was killed. Abu Musa added, ‘Then we discussed the night prayers'”

Bukhari (84:64-65) – “Allah’s Apostle: ‘During the last
days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but
their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and
will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So,
wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on
the Day of Resurrection.'”

Abu Dawud (4346) – “Was not there a wise man among you
who would stand up to him when he saw that I had withheld my hand from accepting
his allegiance, and kill him?” Muhammad is chastising his companions
for allowing an apostate to “repent” under duress. (The person in question
was Muhammad’s former scribe who left him after doubting the authenticity of
divine “revelations” upon finding out that he could suggest grammatical changes.
He was brought back to Muhammad after having been captured in Medina).

Reliance of the Traveller (Islamic Law) o8.1 – “When
a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam,
he deserves to be killed.” (o8.4 affirms that there is no penalty for
killing an apostate).

“For these impious
people, hated by God and infamous, boast of having got the better of the
Romans by their love of God…they live by the bow, the sword and
debauchery, finding pleasure in taking slaves, devoting themselves to
murder, pillage, spoil and not only do they commit these crimes, but
even – what an aberration – they believe that God approves of them. This
is what I think of them, now that I know precisely about their way of
life.”

And,

Vernon Richards on Islam

“The true Islamic concept of peace goes
something like this:’Peace comes through submission to Muhammad and his
concept of Allah'(i.e. Islam). As such the Islamic concept of peace,
meaning making the whole world Muslim, is actually a mandate for war. It
was inevitable and unavoidable that the conflict would eventually reach
our borders, and so it has.”

“Islam was not a torch, as has been
claimed, but an extinguisher. Conceived in a barbarous brain for the use
of a barbarous people, it was – and it remains – incapable of adapting
itself to civilization. Wherever it has dominated, it has broken the
impulse towards progress and checked the evolution of society.”

And,

Alexis de Tocqueville on Islam

“I studied the Koran a great
deal…I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large
there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of
Muhammad. As far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the
decadence so visible today in the Muslim world, and, though less absurd
than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in
my opinion infinitely more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a
form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism
itself.”

Why should bigots feel comfortable spreading their message of intolerance? If the KKK was presenting at PSU, they couldn’t expect a warm welcome and neither should the College Republicans if this is how they want to promote the Republican party. If the College Republicans are an example of the Republican Party’s future, then the Republicans will be relegated on the national level to an increasingly irrelevant party of extremists and bigots in an increasingly multicultural and multi-ethnic United States.

It never ceases to amaze me the disconnect between liberals and reality. Peter, as an example, is so quick to accuse Republicans of being akin to the KKK while ignoring the fact that this is hyperbole, unreasonable and mean-spirited. Meanwhile – I would guess – Peter has been an ardent Obama supporter; and this despite the fact that Obama’s leadership abilities have proven to be pathetic. He cannot even get his own house in order, much less cross the aisle and play hardball where it counts.

But let us look at Obama’s Islamist policies since it is more in tune with what this article is all about and judge Obama on that specific area.

Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi. How has that worked out for Egyptians? Well, it is sort of like what would happen to America if the KKK ran the show. This is to say that Egypt has vastly deteriorated under Obama’s supported Muslim Brotherhood.

One of Egypt’s primary industries, tourism, has fallen off a cliff taking hotels and restaurants and all the employees and owners thereof down with it. Egypt’s women are experiencing far more sexual harassment and far fewer freedoms. Egypt’s Coptic community is under siege with more Coptic children being kidnapped and forcibly converted to Islam, more Coptic churches being burnt to the ground, more Copts killed.

In Libya more of the same. Obama supported the “Rebels” which is to say he and NATO supported Islamists who now run the government. Obama participated in the murder and cover-up of Ambassador Stevens and his Navy Seal guards. Under Obama’s watch North Africa has become increasingly extreme and belligerent.

And the same is true throughout the Middle East and under Obama’s watch. Even “moderate” Turkey has become more radicalized and far more anti-American, and maybe this is music to Peter’s ears seeing as though he attends a university that relishes in anti-American rhetoric.

Peter, Obama’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood and other extremist groups is no different than as if he threw his support behind the KKK. Now who is the real hate-monger, Peter?

Just as an aside and following up on Obama comments, what is most ironic about Obama’s domestic policies is that they have helped the rich get richer while the numbers depending on food stamps have increased substantially.

Arguably the only industry in which Obama would have succeeded is in the advertising industry, i.e., the industry of making people believe things that are not even remotely true. And what is bitterly funny about it is that so many democrats – those disconnected from reality – still believe Obama is sincere and a decent man.

I wonder if Obama or Michelle are spending another million dollars playing golf today or vacationing in Aspen with their peeps.

It looks like the College Republicans weren’t expecting to have a frank discussion, but rather to sit around patting each other’s backs about the anti-Islam film they’d just showed. When someone showed up to actually talk about the film and the issues, they bailed. If you don’t want to have a discussion, you can’t just walk out on it. You left, but the discussion still happened, it wasn’t taken over, you just released your control over it.

there was not a discussion planned whatsoever and this was communicated beforehand. those who stayed for the film and the crowd that just showed up at the end were not interested in a discussion or debate. this is evident by their yelling and intimidation. they only want to be heard and not listen to any other view points but their own.

The College Republicans had two events that portrayed Muslims as inherently violent. The film “Obsession” was funded with large amounts of money by a shadowy organization “Clarion” which has absolutely no transparency. Just google “clarion funding thinkprogress” for an article about it. Right wing pro-Israel
zealots like Sheldon Adelson seem prominently involved. The film has obviously been used to promote widespread fear against Muslims and perpetuate the “war on terror.”

And Noni Darwish’s talk “The Nice Muslim Family Next Door” was of course about the opposite, that they aren’t so nice.
A Muslim woman, an American citizen, spoke at that event saying she was a victim of an anti-Muslim hate crime, Noni Darwish apparently responded, “Well if you are not welcomed here in America, go back to Somalia” to the cheers of the College Republicans.

The one sided and extreme and intolerant nature of the film and the speaker precludes an honest discussion, but the privileged white audience of the College Republicans was obviously stimulated.

As Jesus said, “Why do you look at the speck that is in your
brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” All humans are born into specific cultures and religions and most people want the same thing: dignity, the ability to provide
for their family, freedom to pursue their own lives. The old testament is rife with expressions of support for extreme violence. And look at the role the United States has played in the region: rubblizing the entire country of Iraq based on made up “evidence” and causing the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis and they still haven’t recovered.

You amuse me. Accusing others of being akin to the KKK while apologizing for Islam – a religion founded on hatred by a sadistic, hateful megalomaniac.

Do you not understand that Islam is the KKK’s soul-mate? Are you really that brain-washed or dumb to not see this?

What other religion, other than Islam, regularly shouts praises to their Lord (“Allahu Akbar”) while chopping off the heads of the infidel? What other religion’s prophet raped helpless women, beheaded unarmed men, stole from the needy to enrich their already bursting coffers other than Mohammed.

In fact, dear Peter, Islam makes the KKK look almost good by comparison, if that is possible.

You amuse me Peter. Defending a religion that would kill you if given the power to do so. You amuse me Peter for your moral blindness and for what most certainly be personally forced blindness. Your inability to see what Muslims did to the people of Sudan, what Muslims are doing to the people of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Nigeria, Egypt, Turkey, Yemen, Iran is tells me just how hopeless and sad, albeit perversely amusing, mankind really is.

“Allahu Akbar” they shouted as they cut off Daniel Pearl’s head. God is great. Yeah, right and so is the KKK.

Let me be clear on this issue for I do not want my words to be misconstrued. I have no grudge against Muslims. I hate their religion instead. Muslims are typically Islam’s first victims, in fact; and often Islam’s most abused victims as can easily be witnessed in the endless torture videos as seen in Syria and elsewhere.

Muslims say (I’m working from memory here so the quote is sure to be less than perfect), “It is me against my brother, my brother and I against our family, my family against the tribe, and….”

Based on the history of Islam – both modern and historical – this quote is accurate.

I feel sorry for Muslims. Bad Karma to be borne into a religion that crushes individual freedoms, women, homosexuals, and the hope for a better life in this world as opposed to a promised Paradise with virgins in exchange for murdering infidels.

Islam is the enemy and Muslims its unwitting soldiers. My hope is that more and more Muslims follow in the footsteps of former Muslims like Ibn Warraq, Noni Darwish and others – Muslims brave enough to reach out for something more, for freedom, compassion and kindness to one’s self and to others.

Arafat, you wrote, “Let me be clear on this issue for I do not want my words to be misconstrued. I have no grudge against Muslims. I hate their religion instead” You are not fooling anyone except yourself. Muslims know that you and those who hold your opinion not only have grudge against them, but plan to attack, harass and intimidate muslims everywhere they go. You are inciting to violence against muslims, and all fair-mined people can see it, and will not tolerate it.

I have taken his class and he mischaracterizes islam in a multitude of ways. I wont go as far as to call him an apologist for islam but he definitely frames his lectures in a politically left leaning way. He is intellectually dishonest at times and sometimes even seems to romanticize the islamic world.

Overall he is a great teacher but he definitely views the islamic world through a lens that is 20-30 years old and not particularly applicable today.